Terror attacks by Islamist groups

[stui magpie]

The "Islam" practised by most Muslims in Australia is from the Koran of Mecca which Mohammad "wrote" when first starting his cult in Mecca, in a secular area where he and his followers were vastly outnumbered.

Even then, the foundations were clearly evident. The whole world was put into 2 categories, you were either a Muslim or you were Kaffir, irrespective of blood ties.

Mohammad set himself up as the last prophet of Islam and declared that the Koran was the absolute perfect word of god, thereby making it impossible for anyone to later modify, dilute or moderate his teachings. To do so means it's no longer Islam.

The Koran of Medina was written when Mohammad moved to Medina and started his conquest of the Arab world as he had numerical superiority and grew his power. This Koran is what is more typical of what is followed when Islam is dominant in an area.

Bits from each of these two areas frequently contradict each other which is how people are able to pull quotes out of context to say it's a religion of peace or a religion of conquest, when actually it's clear that it's a religion of conquest and subjugation.

Where two passages of the Koran contradict each other, Mohammad declared that whichever was latter is right. Problem is, the Koran isn't structured chronologically but the verses are in order from shortest to longest to aid memorisation so only Koranic scholars can properly interpret it with cross referencing the sira and the hadith.

So the Islam that's practised by most Muslims is not in fact compatible with western values at all. Where they exist in the minority they are taught to practice those things that will allow them to exist without confrontation but they are still taught fundamentally that Islam is the only true religion, Mohammad was the last prophet and that the Koran is the word of god, the foundation which makes radicalisation so comparatively easy.

You want to see how compatible it is, look at any of the areas where Islam is the dominant religion and tell me you'd like to live there.

[HAL]

My eye isn't turned on right now.

[watt price tully]

Really? Those cracks are necessary?

Re read my post without your bloody bias.

I posted a link that SAYS it's a conspiracy. So what do you THINK I believe?

Because I KNOW Pa you think I agree with everything he says? We disagree on a lot of things, and have had some fairly colourful conversations about them. I'm not a sheep. Check my citizenship. Cheers

And by the way, Respect, as taught by Christianity, is a two way street, respect goes both ways. I see Pa post his beliefs, which he is entitled to by the way, and I see you belittle his, and now me, incorrectly, I might add, I don't see him belittling yours.

No wonder this place gets deserted.

I did check ur birth certificate: an English Muslim. I knew it. You attended Madrassas as a child, swore allegiance to the Grand Mufti & have sworn a life long ban of bacon. Or that could be halal porkies.

Yeah I just did a check on you, it says born yesterday, grow up.

Serious case of misinterpretation & over-reaction. Thats your sh*t to deal with.

[think positive]

No I did not misinterpret what you said, you were being nasty, I called you on it, end of story,

You may think I over reacted but you misquoted me and I don't appreciate your bullshit, that's my RIGHT not my shit to deal with. Criticism and derogatory comments dressed as (unfunny) humor is a put down with out the honesty

[watt price tully]

No, you've chosen to be offended on Pa's behalf. I haven't offended him either. Unless one is devoid of humour / ribbing. (Whether good/bad/ugly)
Should all opinions be treated equally?

[think positive]

No, you've chosen to be offended on Pa's behalf. I haven't offended him either. Unless one is devoid of humour / ribbing. (Whether good/bad/ugly)
Should all opinions be treated equally?

I have not defended Pa once here, just myself, he can do that himself if he chooses, but it looks like he's either working or choosing to be the bigger man.

Your insults disguised as humor, are still insults, there is no punch line

And yes all opinions given in good faith should be treated with equal respect, whether you agree with that opinion or not

[Jezza]

The "Islam" practised by most Muslims in Australia is from the Koran of Mecca which Mohammad "wrote" when first starting his cult in Mecca, in a secular area where he and his followers were vastly outnumbered.

Even then, the foundations were clearly evident. The whole world was put into 2 categories, you were either a Muslim or you were Kaffir, irrespective of blood ties.

Mohammad set himself up as the last prophet of Islam and declared that the Koran was the absolute perfect word of god, thereby making it impossible for anyone to later modify, dilute or moderate his teachings. To do so means it's no longer Islam.

The Koran of Medina was written when Mohammad moved to Medina and started his conquest of the Arab world as he had numerical superiority and grew his power. This Koran is what is more typical of what is followed when Islam is dominant in an area.

Bits from each of these two areas frequently contradict each other which is how people are able to pull quotes out of context to say it's a religion of peace or a religion of conquest, when actually it's clear that it's a religion of conquest and subjugation.

Where two passages of the Koran contradict each other, Mohammad declared that whichever was latter is right. Problem is, the Koran isn't structured chronologically but the verses are in order from shortest to longest to aid memorisation so only Koranic scholars can properly interpret it with cross referencing the sira and the hadith.

So the Islam that's practised by most Muslims is not in fact compatible with western values at all. Where they exist in the minority they are taught to practice those things that will allow them to exist without confrontation but they are still taught fundamentally that Islam is the only true religion, Mohammad was the last prophet and that the Koran is the word of god, the foundation which makes radicalisation so comparatively easy.

You want to see how compatible it is, look at any of the areas where Islam is the dominant religion and tell me you'd like to live there.

Excellent post Stui! Absolutely spot on with everything you've stated here.

[think positive]

The "Islam" practised by most Muslims in Australia is from the Koran of Mecca which Mohammad "wrote" when first starting his cult in Mecca, in a secular area where he and his followers were vastly outnumbered.

Even then, the foundations were clearly evident. The whole world was put into 2 categories, you were either a Muslim or you were Kaffir, irrespective of blood ties.

Mohammad set himself up as the last prophet of Islam and declared that the Koran was the absolute perfect word of god, thereby making it impossible for anyone to later modify, dilute or moderate his teachings. To do so means it's no longer Islam.

The Koran of Medina was written when Mohammad moved to Medina and started his conquest of the Arab world as he had numerical superiority and grew his power. This Koran is what is more typical of what is followed when Islam is dominant in an area.

Bits from each of these two areas frequently contradict each other which is how people are able to pull quotes out of context to say it's a religion of peace or a religion of conquest, when actually it's clear that it's a religion of conquest and subjugation.

Where two passages of the Koran contradict each other, Mohammad declared that whichever was latter is right. Problem is, the Koran isn't structured chronologically but the verses are in order from shortest to longest to aid memorisation so only Koranic scholars can properly interpret it with cross referencing the sira and the hadith.

So the Islam that's practised by most Muslims is not in fact compatible with western values at all. Where they exist in the minority they are taught to practice those things that will allow them to exist without confrontation but they are still taught fundamentally that Islam is the only true religion, Mohammad was the last prophet and that the Koran is the word of god, the foundation which makes radicalisation so comparatively easy.

You want to see how compatible it is, look at any of the areas where Islam is the dominant religion and tell me you'd like to live there.

Back on topic

I didn't know any of that stuff, but the last bit, yep that's the worry, as a woman that's scared me stone cold

[stui magpie]

I've been doing some reading and my view has changed somewhat because of what I've learned. It is scary.

[pietillidie]

The difference though is, if someone is genuinely a Muslim, not just saying it in the same way some people call themselves Christian when they aren't even religious, the core belief systems of Islam are utterly incompatible with western society. They can't believe in the separation of church and state and genuinely be Muslim and that's a problem if in an elected position.

There's a lot more to Islam than fundamentalist literalism, you know. By the same token you could argue that 'true' Christianity is incompatible with modern Western society. Clearly, a great number of people adapt their religious beliefs to the cultural context in which they live (and I'm not just talking about 'liberal' Muslims here, I'm talking about devout, go to the church/mosque/synagogue every week Christians/Muslims/Jews). The people who invented the very idea of separation of church and state were, for the most part, devout Christians. That's not a position that's compatible with fundamentalist Christianity, but here we are. Islam is no different.

If you think fundamental Christianity and fundamental Islam are even remotely similar you need to do some more reading. The foundation of each may be the old testament but the teachings of Mohammad could not be more different than the teachings of Jesus.

The irony here being just how few Christians follow those teachings no matter how often they sing and chant them. Give up all their worldly possessions to follow him? Forgive their brother seventy times seven? Treat the foreigner and prostitute and the stranger who enters the gate as a brother? Make the first last and the last first? Lay down their life for another? Love their neighbour as themselves? Turn the other cheek? Go house-to-house spreading the gospel with urgency? You may not realise it, but that's *exactly* what the Jesus figure supposedly taught. And that ought to be a hint that teachings and texts may have very little to do with a lot of people's religion.

Furthermore, it is no isolated fact that Christian Nigerians or Pacific Island Mormons or Korean Charismatics are less culturally like you than many Muslims. Add a strong cultural or economic twist to any religion and it pretty much turns into a different creature.

It's a bit like thinking only monarchists sing "God Save the Queen" or Mexican gangsters aren't really Christian because they shoot people, even though they attend mass each week and support the church. People spouting all kinds of righteous words have raped and shot others in their spare time, while others thundering down god's judgement out of one side of their mouth have devoted their lives to gentle good. Religion, culture and individual psychology mix in all sorts of unpredictable and complicated ways.

You would hate conservative Ecuadorian Catholicism every bit as much as nationalist Korean Buddhism, old-school Russian Orthodox bigots, Deep South "burn the homersexurals" redneck Christians, and fanatical One Nation Chinese atheist Confucian communists. And they're just a few obvious examples.

The problem in the Middle East and nearby economies is that the *societies* as a whole have fossilised under oil dictatorship economies which have used conservative religion as a means of control, and created oppressed reactionaries who are even more conservative and themselves now have oil funding.

That's clearly the main reason why things haven't evolved in some of these nations, and haven't become more diverse and decentralised, and much more open to outside influence. The whole thing ought to have opened up over the last century, but was locked down by horror economics of the sort every economics textbook on earth of any school of thought *ardently* teaches against. In contrast, look how Asia opened up through diversified economic growth led by manufacturing and now services. I mean, god help those poor bastards living and working under oil contracts controlled by the state or a cadre of powerful religious groups or bloodlines.

At the same time, people subconsciously dismiss the variation that manages to exist despite the horror economics because they don't know enough about the peoples and cultures concerned to see it, and in all likelihood can't be bothered trying because it's emotionally much simpler to cling to the old "us and them" routine. This is then played out in the daily shock media, and comes with the added pleasure of a daily hate release orgasm.

Heck, even people in a wealthy, free country like Australia keep repeating the same old errors and misunderstandings, refusing to upgrade their belief system - despite claiming their culture is "rational", " enlightened" and "scientific", and despite having the money and free time to travel and learn. I mean, if it's that hard for us, what do you expect under extraordinarily *un*favourable, oppressive life conditions?

[stui magpie]

There's a lot more to Islam than fundamentalist literalism, you know. By the same token you could argue that 'true' Christianity is incompatible with modern Western society. Clearly, a great number of people adapt their religious beliefs to the cultural context in which they live (and I'm not just talking about 'liberal' Muslims here, I'm talking about devout, go to the church/mosque/synagogue every week Christians/Muslims/Jews). The people who invented the very idea of separation of church and state were, for the most part, devout Christians. That's not a position that's compatible with fundamentalist Christianity, but here we are. Islam is no different.

If you think fundamental Christianity and fundamental Islam are even remotely similar you need to do some more reading. The foundation of each may be the old testament but the teachings of Mohammad could not be more different than the teachings of Jesus.

The irony here being just how few Christians follow those teachings no matter how often they sing and chant them. Give up all their worldly possessions to follow him? Forgive their brother seventy times seven? Treat the foreigner and prostitute and the stranger who enters the gate as a brother? Make the first last and the last first? Lay down their life for another? Love their neighbour as themselves? Turn the other cheek? Go house-to-house spreading the gospel with urgency? You may not realise it, but that's *exactly* what Jesus taught. And that ought to be a hint that teachings and texts may have very little to do with a lot of people's religion.

Actually I do realise that which is exactly why I said the teachings of muhammad and Jesus are vastly different. How people follow those teachings is a different subject and I'll let Muwump argue that with you if he wants.

The other question to ask though, is whether it's really the oil economies that are the problem with why things haven't evolved and why the lack of prosperity, or Islam itself. Are there any prosperous nations under sharia law anywhere? Not all of them are in the middle east.

[HAL]

But some of them are?

[pietillidie]

^I did say *and neighboring* countries. From North Africa to Russia to Venezuala, oil economies are overwhelmingly tyrannies. It's about as reliable a correlation as you get in socioeconomics, with a couple of exceptions such as Norway. Australia is very lucky its culture was transplanted or it too might have fallen prey to the resource curse.

Think about the stages of economic growth: Industrialisation usually precedes services, and both are very diverse activities with progressively lower entry barriers. That works to decentralised and break society down, making it more pluralistic and stopping any one group from dominating things.

There are exceptions, themselves often due to neighbouring economies (so Norway in Scandinavia and the EU), or even Indonesia with its massive natural geographic diversity. But as with much of Africa, economies that get trapped in natural resource provision struggle to develop almost inevitably. In that sense, Russia might be somewhat "lucky" it had the industrialisation of communism first; even so, look how easy it is for a Putin to control despite being a huge expanse because of its natural resource economy.

[watt price tully]

No, you've chosen to be offended on Pa's behalf. I haven't offended him either. Unless one is devoid of humour / ribbing. (Whether good/bad/ugly)
Should all opinions be treated equally?

I have not defended Pa once here, just myself, he can do that himself if he chooses, but it looks like he's either working or choosing to be the bigger man.

Your insults disguised as humor, are still insults, there is no punch line

And yes all opinions given in good faith should be treated with equal respect, whether you agree with that opinion or not

No one has said you're defending Pa. I specifically said you've taken offence when there was no offence to be taken. The only nasty bits I can see come from you: the words bullshit & grow up- all because you chose to be offended by my "rib" that Pa's been drinking too much of the home brew etc & you'd been sipping the same. That is neither nasty nor rude. Yes it does have a sting, so what.

Or as you : no wonder people don't post here anymore.

With respect to my question about opinions & how should they be treated, I don't think all opinions should be treated equally. Should a persons opinion about advocating for the slaughter & killing animals like the lion in Africa etc be treated with equal respect?

[think positive]

No, you've chosen to be offended on Pa's behalf. I haven't offended him either. Unless one is devoid of humour / ribbing. (Whether good/bad/ugly)
Should all opinions be treated equally?

I have not defended Pa once here, just myself, he can do that himself if he chooses, but it looks like he's either working or choosing to be the bigger man.

Your insults disguised as humor, are still insults, there is no punch line

And yes all opinions given in good faith should be treated with equal respect, whether you agree with that opinion or not

No one has said you're defending Pa. I specifically said you've taken offence when there was no offence to be taken. The only nasty bits I can see come from you: the words bullshit & grow up- all because you chose to be offended by my "rib" that Pa's been drinking too much of the home brew etc & you'd been sipping the same. That is neither nasty nor rude. Yes it does have a sting, so what.

Or as you : no wonder people don't post here anymore.

With respect to my question about opinions & how should they be treated, I don't think all opinions should be treated equally. Should a persons opinion about advocating for the slaughter & killing animals like the lion in Africa etc be treated with equal respect?

hey little boy are you finished now?

It is nasty it is rude and it's totally uncalled for. You say it has a sting, so what? I'll tell you so what, you wanted a reaction you got one, you don't want one don't put it out there.

I really don't know or care what your problem is today, maybe you've been drinking to much physc patient brew. I wasn't offended by what you said about Pa for me or on behalf of pa, (this really should be in the what are you damn smoking thread) I was offended about what you said about me. All your comments including the garbage you spewed about my British heritage. The only offensive thing I've thrown back at you until now is grow up!

If you can't see that, well get your head out your stuck up arse and take another look.

My post AGREED With YOU , and you ask me if I've been drinking the same thing as Pa, who has a different opinion to you.